On the 10th of June 2014, the Iraqi city of Mosul fell to the hands of the “Islamic State in Iraq and Sham” (ISIS) and its allies. The Islamic World around Iraq, that’s to say mainly Turkey, Qatar, the United Emirates and Saudi Arabia, called ISIS “a Sunni revolution defeating the injustice of the Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki”. The leader of ISIS, the Iraqi Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi al-Samarraei announced his “State” from Mosul’s Grand Mosque in his sole public appearance. A few months later, his spokesman the Syrian Abu Muhamad al-Adnani launched the group slogan “Baqiya wa tatamaddad” (remaining and expanding).

Al-Adnani didn’t stop at his slogan but “called upon Allah to destroy ISIS and kill its leaders if on the wrong path”. The response was not long in coming: ISIS is losing most of Iraq and more than 14 of the top leadership have been killed, including al-Adnani himself. ISIS didn’t realise that “Remaining – Baqiya” is un-Islamic because nothing remains on Earth, neither a group nor any human being.

And so ISIS has lost its strongholds in Fallujah, Tikrit and Ramadi. Cities were liberated one after another: the provinces of Babyl, Waset, Diyala, Salahoddine, (a few important pockets are left in Nineveh including Mosul and al-Hader), as well as in Anbar (Rawa, Ana and most difficult city al-Qaim). Instead of “expanding”, ISIS is shrinking and its militants who used to ride in the desert and walk into open cities are now hunted down by land and by air. Wherever the group’s authority reached, destruction is now his companion. ISIS who claimed to defend the Sunni in Iraq is now responsible for dislodging tens of thousands of people, the destruction of the their cities, their wealth and the loss of many lives. ISIS’s slogan was changed from “remaining and expanding” to “vulnerable and shrinking”.

Today all eyes are directed toward Mosul, the city that ISIS occupied and it humiliated the Iraqi Army after killing over 1700 military cadets in what was known as the “Speicher massacre”. The group killed since thousands of Iraqis, carried out suicide attacks and caused a real catastrophe to the Iraqi economy. But that is not the only concern of Baghdad: the U.S. vice President Joe Biden years ago even when he was still the head of the Congress Foreign Affairs committee before Obama was elected in 2008, called for the partition of Iraq into three states. The “Sunnistan”, “Shiistan” and “Kurdistan” proposal was on the table. Biden renewed his offer in 2014 when Iraq was very vulnerable, licking its wounds caused by ISIS.

Behind Biden there were also the mainstream media, and pioneers in Terrorism studies like Bruce Hoffman, as well as Brookings Institution, Middle East studies centre and think thanks based in Washington and the Middle East. All campaigned for the partition of Iraq, describing the Iraqi Army as “incapable” and promoting the Kurds as “the only adequate force to combat ISIS”.

Al-Maliki was pushed away by the grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani despite Iran’s wishes and Haidar al-Abadi was elected as a Prime Minister. Abadi, despite the weak reputation the media portrays him as carrying, refused the Iranian intervention in Iraqi affairs even if he has accepted the military offer from Tehran when the U.S., for months, was watching Iraq disintegrating without reacting. In fact, in the first few moths following the occupation of Mosul when the ISIS “tsunami” conquest overwhelmed the north, east and west of Iraq and even knocked on the doors of Baghdad, Iran offered men and weapons to both Baghdad and Erbil to stop the ISIS advance.

Nevertheless, Abadi fought against the Iranians’ political ambition in Iraq (mainly that of Brigadier General Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – Quds Brigade). Soleimani took advantage of Sistani’s call to form “Popular Mobilisation Units” (PMU) to stop ISIS and fight back, giving the Iraqi security forces the time to retrain and re-group by adopting the PMU and supplying it with Iranian weapons. Soleimani showed himself at every opportunity, every city attacked and recovered. This sent a message to the U.S. that Soleimani was “in control of the ground”. But it was also a message that Abadi didn’t appreciate.

The Prime Minister felt Soleimani was trying to take control of the country. The Iranian military commander went further and held various meetings in Baghdad, discussing the removal of Abadi (who was calling for the return of the U.S. in Iraq). Abadi understood that Iran was a strategic ally but Iraq is certainly not going to be an Iranian province. He needed the U.S.’ support and he needed the Americans to keep away the neighbouring countries, i.e. Saudi Arabia and Turkey, from supporting ISIS to keep Iraq together. Abadi took in hand the situatin for several reasons:

1. Recover the initiative from Soleimani and merge the PMU under the Prime Minister’s command

2. Put an end to voice and media promoting the rhetoric of “the PMU role is to exterminate the Iraqi Sunni ” rhetoric.

3. Abadi warned the PMU leaders he will consider an outlaw anyone who refuse to be part of the official security forces.

Although appointing him as a “military advisor”, Abadi pushed Soleimani away. However, a few groups remain loyal to Iran like Kataeb Hezbollah, Asaeb Ahl al-Haq, Harakat al-Nujaba’, Kataeb Imam Ali and other. Nevertheless, none will work against Abadi’s order or will and won’t be able to fulfil any Iranian agenda in Iraq that contradicts the Prime Minister ‘s policy. So Soleimani became less visible on the Iraqi arena. His relationship with Abadi is hectic even if the Iraqi Premier considers his relationship with Iran – and with the U.S. – strategic and that the integrity of Iraq can be preserved without an American or Iranian direct influence on the Iraqi leadership. After all, Iran, along with Russia, maintain an Intelligence operational room in Baghdad, offering valuable information about ISIS according to Abadi himself.

Abadi informed Iran that Tehran is not in a position to offer diplomatic regional support and reconciliation the U.S. can offer, mainly due to the very bad relationship between Iran and the Gulf countries at the moment.

Iraqi sources in Baghdad enjoying a good relationship with Iran told me “Soleimani asked several Iraqi groups to think of a new plan and way to regroup and form a joint force. The answer was clear: Iraq is not going to be a base for the U.S. nor for Iran: Baghdad’s relationship with both countries will be excellent as long as the integrity of Iraq and the Iraqi will is respected, without regional bickering”.

All that Abadi wants at the moment is to eliminate ISIS and make sure the group won’t return as happened in 2010. The Iraqi leadership is aware of the necessity to protect the minority and share the power with all Iraqi without exception to avoid a return of a society that protects Jihadists. The same al-Qaida Leader Ayman al-Zawaheri called upon his group to return to Iraq and find a way to reinstall itself again and build a strong base. But preventing a return of jihadists to Iraq is a task not only limited to the Iraqis: as long as ISIS exists in Raqqah, Syria, Bagdad will not enjoy long-term peace.

ISIS is doing its best to create confusion in Iraq at the moment. Its militants attacked the northern city of Kirkuk and the bordering city of Rutbah at the Iraqi-Jordanian borders. The Iraqi security forces were able to restore peace again in the two cities, killing ISIS militants. The group believes the hit-and-run tactic could eventually divert the military effort and attention from the major Mosul campaign. Baghdad confirmed that a large military force is retained as reserve forces, under the command of the leadership, to be injected into any weak front or any uprising similar to those at Kirkuk and Rutbah.

But that doesn’t mean ISIS is coming to an end in Iraq and certainly not in Syria. Even if ISIS is considerably shrinking in Iraq, its leadership was aware of what was coming. The Kirkuk attack showed the presence of dormant cells ready to raise when needed. There is no doubt other cells are still dormant and may be used when least expected. Therefore, what can prevent a fertile ground for ISIS or al-Qaida is internal political solidarity and reconciliation… and the end of ISIS in Syria.

The Obama administration is not ready, in its last remaining days in power, to start an unknown-result war against ISIS in Raqqah. There is no ground force, similar to the Iraqi Security Forces to move against ISIS in its Syrian stronghold. Moreover, the presence of Russia and Iran on the ground in Bilad al-Sham imposes the continuity of ISIS and al-Qaida so as to prevent any success to the Russian and Iranian forces in the heart of the Middle East. This means the war in Syria will be long and that ISIS will remain with us for at least the next year.

Published by Elijah J Magnier

Veteran War Zone Correspondent and Senior Political Risk Analyst with over 35 years' experience covering the Middle East and acquiring in-depth experience, robust contacts and political knowledge in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Syria. Specialised in terrorism and counter-terrorism, intelligence, political assessments, strategic planning and thorough insight in political networks in the region.
Covered on the ground the Israeli invasion to Lebanon (1st war 1982), the Iraq-Iran war, the Lebanese civil war, the Gulf war (1991), the war in the former Yugoslavia (1992-1996), the US invasion to Iraq (2003 to date), the second war in Lebanon (2006), the war in Libya and Syria (2011 to date). Lived for many years in Lebanon, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria.
View all posts by Elijah J Magnier